|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted July 29, 2009 10:48 AM |
|
|
Everybody seems to think wars are a black and white issue, but that is far from the truth. There are as many reasons for wars as there have been wars, and yes most (if not all) would have been best if they never happened. While I agree that wars are harmful for the most part, I do see some 'exceptions'. One is 'when good people do nothing, evil flourishes'.
A nation is killing/raping/torturing its own people. Lets say that the other nations decide "Well that is ok, they are just hurting themselves." and let it go. Now the nation spreads to a neighboring nation, and starts killing/raping/torturing THEM. At what point do we say "Ok we are justified in stopping them?" Yes, it would be better for all if the nation never started anything, but we don't live in a utopia.
Now of course we have to talk about civilian casualties in war. It is an absolute travisty, but (you knew it was coming right?) here is the thing. In wars some people have used hiding behind civilians, or even using 'civilians' including children to attack their enemies.
I will take for example the Vietnam war. Attrocities were done there, I won't deny it, but sometimes the soldiers faced a terrible choice. Let that child/woman bring a granade in and kill them or kill the child/woman. Not a choice I would want to face. Then when they came home they were spit on. We should not be proud of what happened, but we should at least make an attempt to understand the horrors they had to face.
So when you can not tell the enemy from the civilians who really is to blame when travesties happen. The enemy who hides behind civilians.
In conclusion I believe that while wars should not happen, I don't think that it is as black and white as people seem to think.
Now as to the 'bunkers' bit  . That is why a concentrated offensive is the best. Planes and Ships can keep the bunkers pinned down and or destroy them while forces land. This is also where strategic insertion teams (like Seals) come in. They go in, disrupt the bunkers, and are not big enough targets to really pinpoint with said bunkers.
____________
Message received.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 11:25 AM |
|
|
Dagoth:
Quote:
Do you have any idea how retarded that idea sounds, xerox?
Speaking of which, your hardline pacifist stance is ultimately nothing less than mass manslaughter.
You've been dodging the points everybody has been making with conditional excuses. Obviously judging an entire nation by it's policymakers is nonsense, and you're never going to be faced with a case where an entire population is a bunch of Genghis Khan's. And obviously if you review the chain of events that lead up to wars, you'll see that it's a multi-faceted, complicated issue. And given the fallibility of humans, you can probably always find some things that each side could have done differently to help prevent it. Granted; that much any honest person can see.
If an aggressive enemy is running through your country, you are morally demanded to do something about it. And if the country's leader, let's call him DagothGares, sat around and literally did absolutely nothing, than that leader is guilty of mass manslaughter and treason. You wouldn't be "taking the high road".
And ultimately, every single soldier in the invading army is responsible for what they're doing. Maybe they're not some kind of maniacal psychopath, but they're still in an army suit, doing their job, and with that they rightfully accept the risk of dying.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 11:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now as to the 'bunkers' bit . That is why a concentrated offensive is the best. Planes and Ships can keep the bunkers pinned down and or destroy them while forces land. This is also where strategic insertion teams (like Seals) come in. They go in, disrupt the bunkers, and are not big enough targets to really pinpoint with said bunkers.
What planes, are you going to charge against hi-tech AA stations? Go ahead.. To destroy a piece of empty ground and loss a 2billion$ worth jets. A bunker doesn't have to be hi-tech anyway, its costs are extremely low.
as for ships.. well, I mentioned we should assume the country is deep within land to simplify things, naval warfare is complicated.
Besides.. don't forget I mentioned "bunkers" as a possible use of environment only, not something I'd actually depend on.
I wonder.. does anybody know the range of Iowa Class 16inchers and Zumwalt's AGS? (Advanced Gun System)? Try to guess  Just dont google it right away, I wonder whether you guys have an idea about those things. in kilometers please, I'm familiar with nautical miles but they aren't convenient.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 11:50 AM |
|
|
That is why I said a concentrated effort. No planes lost, and bunkers gone. Even if deep in ships can carry long range weapons capable of hitting all but maybe middle of China (and I am not even sure of that). If they are too deep in, then landing troops is gonna be a lot easier, and land troops can take out those low tech bunkers much easier.
____________
Message received.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 11:55 AM |
|
|
Well, yes, a country has a right to defend itself, after all that's what a nation does I suppose. The leader is usually elected for that, but again the aggression is not right or justifed in any way. The defense is obligatory. I understand that, since it's the primary function of the nation. That someone is forced to kill his fellow man in order to stay alive is not right, just or morally obligatory in any way. I understand it must be done at some point and I do not condemn the soldiers. It's the war itself that I condemn and it's the actions undertaken that aren't right. So yes, you got me, I think defense is okay as far as the nation's borders go, but in the end it's still a horrible thing. The aggressor is usually the first faulty party, but when wars go on for a little while, that line tends to blur sometimes.
If I detach myself from this, I can reason that a country should be able to respond with everything it can to defend it's citizens, but once these citizens are no longer in immediate danger, then the nation's army should not respond any further. And I understand that soldiers signed up for the dangers of dying, but it's still a bad thing that human life is used in this way and should be avoided at nearly all costs.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 02:03 PM |
|
|
War sucks because no one likes it, even the winners, even those who survive.
War, is it needed???!?!??!?!??!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!!!!!!!!!!
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
|
nope
Pretty weird Elodin thinks war is ok (under certain circumstances), though..
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 05:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What planes, are you going to charge against hi-tech AA stations? Go ahead.. To destroy a piece of empty ground and loss a 2billion$ worth jets. A bunker doesn't have to be hi-tech anyway, its costs are extremely low.
Mate you just need to have more missiles if you want 0 casualties. So a massive jet attack is enough. The cool thing about it is that they are reusable compared to the destroyed AA stations.
Or just enough jets to keep the AA's busy with their missiles (I mean the jets' missiles) while the bomber bombs it to oblivion.
Furthermore they CAN be concentrated in an area, unlike AAs, which are not flexible in movement. So if AAs are concentrated in an area, you just go and bomb the undefended area. That's why AAs will usually be scattered in more than one base (otherwise it would be ridiculous LOL), while jets & bombers can be flexible to attack one at a time, for instance.
Quote:
War sucks because no one likes it, even the winners, even those who survive.
War, is it needed???!?!??!?!??!!??!?!?!?!!??!?!!!!!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure the winners like the war more than the alternative, which would be to get bombed.
And yes it is needed, if you look realistically, not Utopian mentality. Like I said before, sometimes force is the only option with humanity.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can understand that when we are speaking against individuals. That's why police force is there, but do you honestly believe there can be a nation of these people. And even IF there is a nation these fabled hitlers like elodin and you speak of, then still, STILL it's wrong to go after them and it STILL does not make war just in any way. It makes it all the more regrettable.
With that I agree, I don't agree with Elodin regarding invasions. The police can't deal with people's opinions, by "people" I mean a consensus. The police SERVE the people, if the people are *******s then that's what you would expect from that group (let's not get bigger into a "nation").
And just because I said that wars are inevitable doesn't mean I agree with all of them, in fact I agree with very few of them. Wars for resources are bleh, as are wars for supremacy. It's just humans. As long as selfishness and difference of opinions exist, wars will likely exist. (difference of opinions leads to ideology wars).
Quote:
Also, death, I thought you were against responding in contact. Aren't you lowering yourself to their level then? We sure have changed since the first time I saw you argue something.
Well in the meantime I realized that the reason the "peaceful people" always get under the rock is because they can't transmit their message to the "brutes", because they don't speak their language (force).
Yes I know that violates their principle, which is why I advocate "protectionism" so to speak. That is, someone to protect the peace ideology, but to know the language of the brutes.
I don't advocate force for no force obviously. And you wouldn't know how many people use force everyday without even breaking the law.
Basically, once you want to STOP someone from doing something that affects stuff other than himself/herself, then you realize that person is doing SOMETHING, and probably "speaking out" would be ignored and worthless (maybe just make fun of you in your back  ).
ACTIONS carry consequences, not inaction. Force is never justified against someone doing inaction, but for someone who does something (i.e an action), it CAN be justified, but that is subjective and if I were to explain it would be also my opinion so let's just leave it at that..
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 08:02 PM |
|
|
Actually and excuse my French, you people are - to slightly change a well-known song of Pink Floyd - comfortably dumb.
War is basically the same than the school bully hitting you because he can. War is the Mafia cashing in from restaurants (and don't believe it's cliché). War is organized violence, and there is no natural law or reason or self-explaining matter-of-course that would neutralize the right of the stronger or strongest to do what they want. This is especially true with groups of people haing different belifs and religions, a different moral.
However: war is the fight of the suppressed against their suppressors as well.
War may be the last resort if all you have is your bare life.
The only moral is that the winner is right. Often right or wrong reduces to the question of who fired the first shot which most of the time is not really clear.
The only way to ontrol this, is to control the means for warfare worldwide and establish a worldwide police force. If you don't do that I don't see any moral foundation for anything.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 08:33 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:36, 29 Jul 2009.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Actually and excuse my French, you people are - to slightly change a well-known song of Pink Floyd - comfortably dumb.
Please stop insulting people. That is a direct violation of the COC. I know I would get called down from a moderator if I were to call you dumb not to mention certain people would be flooding the moderators with PMs crying a river of tears. I quote below the releveant portion of the code of conduct.
Quote:
1) NO insults, abuse, racism or sexism.
Insult is a remark that undermines another person. A simple way to avoid insulting people is to discuss their actions and opinions rather than their personality. For example: instead of saying who they are ("you suck" or "you are an idiot") say what you think about their opinions/actions and why ("Your post about me is wrong because I never said that heroes 4 is a bad game" or "I disagree with your opinion because centaurs have more hit points than gnolls"). This simple rephrasing strategy can resolve many conflicts and fights before they even happen, both online and in life.
I disagree with your statement that the only moral is the winner is right. Some things are worth standing up and fighting for even if the odds were that I would be defeated. I would surely defend my family against a group of attackers even if it looked like there was no chance for me to win. The same goes for defending my nation against an aggressor.
I do not trust government. The bigger a government gets the less trustworthy it is. It will gobble up more and more and more power. The same principle would hold for a worldwide police force. The commander of the police force would rule the world or at least carve out his own empire.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 08:55 PM |
|
|
Two things elodin:
- Comfortably dumb isn't really an insult. It means you're ignorant of the factualities, because you've got an easy life.
- Second, I like how you say you don't trust any government, yet you do trust the american government!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 09:21 PM |
|
|
I'm conscious of the fact that I'm close to insultging people; DG is explaining my intent quite well. Interestingly enough he is the strongest supporter of a strict anti-war position.
My position actually is that there is no natural moral point against war. If you CAN dom something, well. Why shall only the most intelligent people "win". The strongest have something going for them as well, so the thing is, that it doesn't matter much HOW you "suppress" people, whether with brute force or subtlety, and if you ARE suppressed sll bets are off anyway.
We can "beat" war only, if we establish a just and fair world order. If the world (or any order) order isn't fair, war is an option, if all other options are invalid.
If it's about survival morality changes.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 09:25 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:29, 29 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
The only moral is that the winner is right.
Not all wars are based on ideologies (i.e "I am right"). Some are based on pure selfishness or greed (like for resources, supremacy), not necessarily demanding "to be right".
And you said so well: war is also a means for the suppressed against the suppressors, or against people who do damage or other ACTIONS like that.
Now, if we remove selfishness and wars for greed, we still won't achieve peace. Depending on ideology or whatever, the moment people "wish" that person X shouldn't do Y, they would want to stop them, and war/violence has started.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 09:29 PM |
|
|
Lol at this topic. Just pure lol.
There is no such thing as Ethics behind Organized Mass Killing. Ethics are only used as a cloak to obscure the gruesome thruth.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 09:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no such thing as Ethics behind Organized Mass Killing.
Sorry but that's naive to say. If you added "most" before "Organized Mass Killing" then I would have agreed.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 09:38 PM |
|
|
No, I disagree.
War is a form of violence. If a society or "order" is unjust, then violence is the logical onsequence. Non-violence has an objective moral value only when there is no unjustice anymore.
If, for example, you are forced to work as slaves, then a "war" may be the only way to change that.
If your land was a colony and outlandish companies are controlling your national wealth, then war may be the only option.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Apparently your view of wars boils down to justifying every war the USA has ever led and every war atrocity it ever committed.
What about Russia? What atrocities did it do?
They were worse than any other I have heard.
PLease no comments like US is bad,worse and worst.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 29, 2009 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The only moral is that the winner is right.
I disagree. And i agree quite the lot.
The moral is that the winners write the history, the losers will in most cases be painted whited and sent out as target practice for whatever machine they got(media, public, etc) and before that we demonize them to a great extent, as much as possible. Relgion and other things are used as an excuse to get more soliders, since more = win at most cases.
Lets say we got country A, thats "evil". And we got country B, thats "we are going to do something with evil!". In this scenario country B is actually the good guys, but whoever wins the war paint the other side in white and gets to write down in good ink in the book of history: "These snows that lost the war are quite the villans". Thats the fact.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 30, 2009 12:19 AM |
|
|
@ DagothGares
Quote:
Two things elodin:
- Comfortably dumb isn't really an insult. It means you're ignorant of the factualities, because you've got an easy life.
- Second, I like how you say you don't trust any government, yet you do trust the american government!
I'm sorry, but I don't buy your spin. Putting an adjective or adverb in front of "dumb" doea not make it not an insult.
comfortably dumb
increasingly dumb
overly dumb
ect
I frankly could care less what kind of language anyone usses except some people seem to be allowed to use "strong" language and some people are not. Since I get scolded if I "hold up a mirror" all I can do is point out provocation.
What I say is that the US is not an evil nation like some people on this board say. Every government bears watching. US citizens should do a better juob holding the politicians accountable for their actinos. Government is a necessary evil but that doss not mean corruption should be tolerated, especially in a democracy where you can vote the politicians out.
@Lexxan
Quote:
Lol at this topic. Just pure lol.
There is no such thing as Ethics behind Organized Mass Killing. Ethics are only used as a cloak to obscure the gruesome thruth.
So you think it would be unethical to fight back to keep your wife from being raped? I would fight back.
So you think it would be unehical to fight back to keep your nation from being raped? I would fight back.
Freedom can only be kept if you are willing to spill blood over it. There are no pacifict nations for a reason. Why don't you try starting a nation with no army and no ally to protect you and see how long you stay free.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
